I read Evan Thomas' review and you are flat out, 100% wrong here.

Thomas is not calling for more information about the affair - he's asking a writer who was uniquely well-positioned to give us insight as to how one of the most brilliant political minds in American history committed the most unforgivable political sin possible: validating the worst things your enemies say about you.

The issue isn't about sex. It's about Clinton and the incredible damage he caused to the people and causes he believed in becasue of unbelievable lack of judgement.

Clinton the man survived impleachment because his enemies were so blinded that they made the process about sex. But Clinton's presidency was mortally wounded, because his actions were so reckless that they legitimized the criticisms of even the most outlandish extremist.

Branch could have provided unique insights into the mind of the President here, and for whatever reason, he passed on the opportunity. If you don't care, that's fine. But to criticize Thomas' review by implying that he was asking for more sexual details is both careless and false. It's also beneath you Joan.

Agile Cyborg:

Comparing incest to homosexuality is about as intellectually dishonest as it gets. It's also dangerous, since the logic you are employing is identical to that used by Rick Santorum when he compared gay marriage to incest and bestiality.

If your intent is to imply that I'm one of "those people," who see all sexual behavior outside the narrow confines of heterosexual marriage as deviant, you'll have to better than this. I didn't say what you are implying, and the connectioin you cite is non-existent, except perhaps in your own mind,

On the other hand, if your intent is to make a sympathetic case for incest, then we have nothing to talk about.

Rape is a sexual crime that requires a lack of consent to be committed. Incest is sexual behavior that society considers to be depraved by definition.

Is all incest rape? Not necessarily. Is all incest depraved? Yes.

Trying to have a nuanced discussion about whether all incest is rape is somewhat bizzare and irrelevent, in the sense that it tends to obscure the fact that the answer to the second question is always yes. So I'm not sure what you're driving at to even have this discussion.

I think the larger question here is about the veracity of MacKenzie Phillips.

Her father wrote his own tell-all book more than 20 years ago and has already copped to doing some pretty sick things. So if she wants to sell books, MacKenzie has to come up with "news" that is more twisted than the notion of getting your own child addicted to herion. (As one example.)

Incest does the trick here nicely and John is not around to refute the allegations. So call me cynical about the entire thing.

At the end of the day, it might not make much difference. Papa John was a pretty sick dude and he has clearly screwed up MacKenzie for life, so I have sympathy for her in any case.

Anyone who would write this phrase:

"Regarding nearly all of them, including the Primobolan and testosterone that Rodriguez admitted to taking, it can be stated that there isn't evidence that they improve baseball performance at all."

Is a complete moron.

Steroids are responsible for the unprecendeted surge in power that we've seen across baseball for the last two decades. It's not speculation - it's fact. To ignore this is to close your eyes to reality.

A-Roid is an admitted user of anabolic steroids. And the use he talked about is a sophisticated cycling that indicates a lot more than he let on during his interview. To brush this away by noting that what he did wasn't against the rules at the time is both (1) false (Baseball bannd steroids in 1990, but had no testing program in place) and (2) irrelevent.

Your attitude about the subject marks you as either a willing dupe or simply a fool. Take you pick.

A week without sex is supposed is considered punishment? I thought it was just called marriage?

As others have pointed out, Harry Reid has nothing to do with the impeachment process, since the house impeaches and the Senate votes to convict or acquit based on the evidence presented by the House managers.

As far as the grounds for impeachment, the fact is that impeachment carries no criminal penalties and is therefore an inherently political act. A politician or judge can be impeached for actions taken before they were appointed/elected to their position. In fact, they can be impeached for anything the House wants to specify, so long as they couch it in the context of "high crimes and misdemeaners."

Would the House have a stonger case if they waited for a disbarment recommendation? Probably. (It's what I'd do.) But nothing prevents them from pointing to the memo itself as the sole rationale for impeachment.

"Sometimes a pig is just a pig"

And honsetly, anyone who can't understand that thinking your kids are "pigs" isn't s sexual thing either (1) doesn't have kids, or (2) is emotionally blind to the realities of life.

Not defending Baldwin here. Because he acted like ... well ... a pig. But to imply that there was anything sexual in his comments without any context is really uncalled for.